IMHO, a good one I've just picked up to read again (for what I think are understandable reasons): Feersum Endjinn by Iain M. Banks. The language of Bascule is difficult to grasp at first, but a delight to read once you get the hang of it
When I decided to attend Caltech 8 years ago, there was a message board during the summer for new undergrads. The one book that practically all of us had read was Ender's Game. Way more people had read that than Harry Potter. It was astonishing that even among students who didn't like science fiction, or reading in general, this was one of their most treasured books. Why? It's because Ender's Game taps into how it feels to be a precocious, picked-on, nerdy kid better than any book I have ever come across. It's the only book where I not only felt a strong connection to a nerdy child protagonist, but felt that the author was often describing my own emotions as a kid. Those "sadistic cowards" you mention are the same older students and adults who didn't give a fuck when older kids would pick on me. And I learned to fight back and beat up these bullies, just like Ender did, even if it was less cool and (regrettably) non-fatal. I don't know what your own experiences were, but for me, that was one of the strongest and most realistic elements of the story, not a weakness. I believe that's the defining legacy of the work; an amazing, heartfelt novel on what it means to be a smart, nerdy kid ostracized and bullied by one's peers, and how to combat it. Focus- I'm a huge fan of Robert Heinlein in general, but have a particular fondness for his later works. While I love earlier books like Starship Troopers, The Puppet Masters, The Door into Summer, my two absolute favorites are his later, distopian, pessimistic novels Friday and The Glory Road. I also love Philip Jose Farmer. The Riverworld series is a must-read, as is the short story collection The Purple Book, including the awesome Riders of the Purple Wage. His stories of the Empire of the Nine are excellent too, an interesting spin on both Tarzan and Doc Holliday, particularly Lord of the Trees. Among his short stories, Rastignac the Devil is fantastic, and available for free on Gutenberg. Also a big fan of David Brin; not only is The Postman an absolute classic (adopted into a horrendous piece of shit film starring Kevin Costner), but The River of Time is one of the best short story collections ever, in any literary genre. Really have to check out Iain Banks now, thanks to this topic. I literally heard about him for the first time on Thursday (3 days ago) from a friend, and now have heard his praises sung here.
Hi all, new here, just thought I'd add my two cents! Asimov was so ahead of his time it's unbelievable and the Foundation trilogy is a must read. Another favourite of mine is a 6-book series call The Amtrak Wars by Patrick Tilley which I remember being very good (though it has been many years since I read them).
Make sure, if you're looking for his sci-fi stuff, you pick out his 'Iain M. Banks' books. His 'Iain Banks' books aren't sci-fi.
Another Iain M. Banks fan - his work really is outstanding. Paulo Bacigalupi is depressing, but The Windup Girl will go down as one of the keystone works of the decade. Hyperion and its sequels, written by Dan Simmons, are magnificent pieces of fiction. Old Man's War by John Scalzi is great fun. Looking back a year or two, Alfred Bester's work is always worth a read, as is The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. A small selection for you to have a look at.
Late entry! Hope it can still be of use. A lot were mentioned that I too would recommend: Dune, Ubik, Do androids dream of electric sheep? (both by PKD), 1984, Ender’s game, Speaker for the dead (follows Ender). I also third anything by Asimov. Adding: Fahrenheit 451, A Brave new world - 2 of my favourite novels.
It's one of the greatest books ever, but I have never understood how anyone considers 1984 "science fiction". There is no science or advanced technology in it. While it's about the future, it features the same technology as the era in which it was written. Unless every novel set in the future is "science fiction" by default. It's not only that I think "Brave New World" is a crappy, garbage book, it's just so boring and forgettable! Regardless, it's hardly an accurate representation of the genre, which is a good thing.
I don't think science fiction requires advanced technology. Books that deal with technology or social science (government systems, and the like), and questions those raise with regard to humanity, can count as science fiction. On the other hand, not every book set in the future, even if it has advanced technology, is science fiction. I think 1984 or Brave New World are much better examples of science fiction that Star Wars, for example, which is basically fantasy set in space (and in the distant past).
So does that make Battle Royale or its knock-off, The Hunger Games, science fiction as well? Brave New World certainly is science fiction, that's not what I was arguing. Rather, it's a type of simplistic science fiction light on actual imagination and heavy on cliched, rhetorical prattling. Thankfully, most well-regarded sci-fi I have read is different.
1984 is quite clearly SF - perhaps not falling within the strict definition of science fiction, but certainly lying within the boundaries of its speculative big brother. I've always failed to see merit in the other argument, that the 'future' dystopia dealing with hypothetical scenarios and political machinations through its imagined world isn't SF. And I'm not sure about Battle Royale, not having read the book, but The Hunger Games is most definitely SF. Again, a dystopian future in which the protagonists make their way. Much less advanced, much less intelligent (not that that's a bad thing at all), but rendered SF by its setting. As another suggestion for SF to read, try Theodore Sturgeon's More Than Human.
It ultimately depends upon one's definitions. I'm not massively invested in the "what is science fiction" debate, but for me personally, 1984 isn't sci-fi. In terms of reading lists, however, it should be at the very top for anyone unfamiliar with it.
By today's genres and sub-genres, I'd put 1984 into the 'speculative future fiction' category rather than 'science fiction'. However, back in 1948(?) when 1984 was published such a genre didn't exist, as far as I'm aware. As for technology there is the whole thing with the 'TV' in every room keeping Big Brother's eye on everyone, so there is some reasoning to having given it the 'science fiction' label in the past. Now that such technology is widespread in one form or another it's not fictional science any more, so doesn't fit the genre.
I don't think you can retrospectively remove the genre. If a novel was science fiction when it was written, it remain science fiction forever. It's just old science fiction and thus not very exciting to us today.
It's a purely semantic, subjective and onion-based argument, and not one which is likely to end up with us agreeing, but I believe a creative work can 'slip' genre given enough time. For instance, I now see H.G. Wells' work like The Time Machine and War of the Worlds as steampunk rather than science fiction, but that's only because over the intervening century or so, the steampunk genre came into being. At the time they would have been seen as science fiction, and rightly so. 1984 falls into the same situation, for me at least.
This technology was widespread in the late 1940s. What, you don't think they had televisions back then? They did.
[MENTION=51248]Ian J.[/MENTION]: Yeah, I see what you mean. I think perhaps than losing a genre, they gain one? HG Wells classics are some of the earliest sci-fi we have, but today, they are perfectly fitting into steampunk genre, which is, in my opinion, a metamorphosis of a portion of sci-fi which, as technology advancement boomed, stopped being 'futuristic'. It would be an interesting essay to write actually
TV sets weren't common in the late 1940s. They were so expensive they could only be bought by the somewhat wealthy both in the U.S. and U.K., so to say they were 'widespread' is misleading. I think we also need to remember that the 'TVs' in 1984 weren't just TVs, they were two-way 'telescreens'. Orwell was obviously aware of the emergent television service and was speculating on what that technology might become. He was a few years too early, but with there being cameras in so many of our pieces of technology today (not the least of which is Microsoft's Kinect sensor!) he was pretty much spot on in capturing the idea of a 'surveillance' society though it has obviously come about via crime prevention and private company 'intrusion', rather than state control.
Wrong. I don't know where you're getting this information, but it's incorrect. While television was a relatively new technology in the early 40s, it had quickly become a popular and dominant form of media by the end of the decade. While I couldn't find exact figures, this is a worthwhile read; http://www.helium.com/items/525906-the-history-and-evolution-of-television-the-1940s-and-1950s Which was a technology available in the late 1940s as well. I think perhaps the problem is that you're not very informed about the technology of that time, so you think elements of the story were "sci-fi" when it was actually a description of technology in Orwell's contemporary society.
[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION]: I think your definition of 'widespread' needs revisiting. I've just pulled some figures together from various internet sources (in an attempt to get some balance I didn't just choose one) and as far as I can tell, there were around 3.8 million sets in ownership in the U.S. at the end of 1949, versus only 44,000 in 1947, and at most 350,000 in 1948. While this shows a 'massive' increase in 1949, it pales into insignificance with the figures for the 1950s, by the end of which there were around 43 million. My definition of 'widespread' would to my mind be where at least 1 in 2 homes have a set, which the US didn't hit until sometime in 1954 according to what figures I can find. At the beginning of 1950 that was maybe 1 in 11 homes at best. Sources: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/mason_&_associates/documents/timeline.pdf http://www.tvhistory.tv/facts-stats.htm http://www.lib.niu.edu/1993/ihy930341.html As for two way telescreens, just because a technology might be available in some early form does not mean it's widely known about or understood. Orwell was putting it into every home and workplace in his fiction, which is a point we've only reached in the last few years. I've said enough on this subject now, I've done the research and I've got figures that back me up, I'm not labouring this any further.
Guys, this is neither here nor there for the topic. If you want to create your own thread, by all means do, but please keep the scope of discussion inside the OP's request.
Another good Sci-fi book that I enjoyed immensely was Snow Crash by Neil Stephensen. I thought his characters and his world were just incredible. He's clearly a very clever man.
Some "dystopian fiction" overlaps with sci-fi, but I'd definitely recommend We by Yevgeni Zamyatin. Of course 1984 is great (social science fiction, anyone?). Dmitry Glukhovsky's Metro 2033 is also more on the dystopian side, but it's pretty good. Tanya Huff's Valor series introduces a fairly unique female heroine and those novels are a pretty fun read.
